Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 5:57:00 PM (view original):You could use the same reasoning to argue against any legislation.

In reality, it's unlikely that everyone (or 50% of the population) will end up in the exchanges. Employers provide benefits to keep good employees. That will continue since most people don't qualify for the exchange subsidy. The exchanges aren't designed to be a safety net.

If it doesn't work, the next logical step is single payer. The system we had before wasn't working and was/is headed for catastrophe.

Let me fix that for you:

In reality, it's quite likely that 50% of the population will end up in the exchanges. Employers started providing benefits as a way around wage control laws passed during WWII, because they couldn't offer raises. It was adopted as a requirement in union contracts, and it has continued because the expectation was set that working Americans would have access to health insurance (which they do regardless, under the ACA). The exchanges were not designed to be a safety net, but will almost certainly be used that way by companies, due to the relative cost of the penalty vs. the cost of continuing to provide subsidized healthcare, while competing in a global marketplace against companies from other countries that don't absorb that cost. P.S. - companies like to maximize profits.

Single payer is another argument, and I fail to see how that is "the next logical step".

And we're back in this circle jerk.

Regardless of the history behind it, these days employers provide benefits as a way to keep good employees. The ACA doesn't change that. Companies will continue to need good employees and good employees will continue to be selective in where they work.

What you continue to refuse to acknowledge is the fact that the ACA diminishes the value of employee sponsored health plans as an employee benefit because now a viable alternative is available with the exchanges. If said benefit has less value, then it is less of an enticement that companies can offer (and prospective employees can seek) in a job-hiring scenario.

And, as examinerebb clearly points out, over time there WILL be more and more employers choosing to pay the penalty rather than subsidize employee healthcare, thus forcing more and more people into the exchanges.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/10/2013 8:25:00 PM (view original):What you continue to refuse to acknowledge is the fact that the ACA diminishes the value of employee sponsored health plans as an employee benefit because now a viable alternative is available with the exchanges. If said benefit has less value, then it is less of an enticement that companies can offer (and prospective employees can seek) in a job-hiring scenario.

And, as examinerebb clearly points out, over time there WILL be more and more employers choosing to pay the penalty rather than subsidize employee healthcare, thus forcing more and more people into the exchanges.

What you continue to refuse to acknowledge is the fact that the ACA diminishes the value of employee sponsored health plans as an employee benefit because now a viable alternative is available with the exchanges.

The exchanges only diminish the value of benefits if the exchanges are cheaper and provide the same coverage. I don't think that is the case.

If said benefit has less value, then it is less of an enticement that companies can offer (and prospective employees can seek) in a job-hiring scenario.

Again, company provided benefits are only less of an enticement if exchanges are a better deal. Since a) most people who get benefits through work don't pay full price for the coverage and b) the exchanges usually come with a significant deductible, I don't think that is the case.

And, as examinerebb clearly points out, over time there WILL be more and more employers choosing to pay the penalty rather than subsidize employee healthcare, thus forcing more and more people into the exchanges.

That's a consequence of the weak economy, not the ACA. With high unemployment and no ACA, over time companies would cut benefits without penalty (like they have been for the last few years), leaving more and more people without a viable alternative for heath coverage.

Barely read any of this thread, but if you're not being sarcastic, and your argument is "hit rock bottom so that we'll actually vote out these morons in Congress" then I like your argument. I'm not sure if that's what I'm rooting for, because I don't think the country is strong enough from an economic standpoint at this time, but what is Congress' approval rating - 10%? Yet if they fix this this week, everyone will forget about it next November and these same clowns will be voted in. If this continues into the winter, it will be a bigger deal.

Posted by burnsy483 on 10/15/2013 9:09:00 AM (view original):Barely read any of this thread, but if you're not being sarcastic, and your argument is "hit rock bottom so that we'll actually vote out these morons in Congress" then I like your argument. I'm not sure if that's what I'm rooting for, because I don't think the country is strong enough from an economic standpoint at this time, but what is Congress' approval rating - 10%? Yet if they fix this this week, everyone will forget about it next November and these same clowns will be voted in. If this continues into the winter, it will be a bigger deal.

It's so much bigger than that though. We are at rock bottom...or as close as I ever want to be. But, no matter what happens to the economy, wholesale changes in the House are extremely difficult due to gerrymandering. Realistically, House members are in more danger of primary challenge from a more extreme member of their own party. And that certainly won't solve anything.

The government is shut down. Unemployment is over 7%. We may hit the debt ceiling.

That's as low as I'm willing to go.

Voting out all of congress doesn't solve the structural problems that led to this. We'll just replace them with another group of 535 idiots who will probably be more politically polarized and less experienced and still in the pockets of the big lobbyists.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/15/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):The 535 idiots in Congress today seem to act as if they only need to be held accountable to the lobbyists and the political power-brokers in Washington.

They need to start understanding that they primarily need to be held accountable to the people who elected them.

A couple of cycles of one-term Representatives and Senators, if that's what it takes, should start to get the point across.

You'd think it would but the way the congressional districts are gerrymandered you're only going to get more extreme candidates. And, as we're seeing now, the more polarized congress gets, the more gridlock we get.